Replies

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism. Frankly, I think when conservatives start thumping their chests about their SUV's, they sound reactionary in the worst sense, i.e., the thinking seems to be, "Liberals support fuel-efficient cars, so I'm against them." I think it would be great if Bush could take this issue away from the Democrats.

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism. Frankly, I think when conservatives start thumping their chests about their SUV's, they sound reactionary in the worst sense, i.e., the thinking seems to be, "Liberals support fuel-efficient cars, so I'm against them." I think it would be great if Bush could take this issue away from the Democrats.

There are plenty of high-milage vehicles available, yet many consumers prefer more powerful vehicles, and don't mind paying extra for more gas. In how many other areas do you think our government should restrict and interfere with your private financial transactions? Life, *liberty*, and *pursuit of happiness*. Who are you to say that even though people are more satisfied with larger vehicles, they shouldn't be allowed to drive them?

I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism.

No, but conservatives usually believe in market-oriented solutions as opposed to centrally-planned government solutions, which generally have unintended consequences and rarely solve the problem under focus. It was CAFE originally, that led to the prevalence of SUVs.

I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism.

Agree completely. I own an old Toyota P/U that gets 28 mph and a 2001 Chevy that gets 19 mpg on the road. I would love to get my hands on a large-size hybrid P/U that gets upward of 35 mph for long distance travel here in the southwest. I'm as conservative as most others on here, but thrifty when possible (some would call me a cheapskate!). In any event, I welcome efforts by manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency, even if prodded by the Feds.

How about making a link between freedom of choice in the marketplace and conservatism? If I think there is "no replacement for displacement", then I should be able to choose products that suit that preference.

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism. Frankly, I think when conservatives start thumping their chests about their SUV's, they sound reactionary in the worst sense, i.e., the thinking seems to be, "Liberals support fuel-efficient cars, so I'm against them." I think it would be great if Bush could take this issue away from the Democrats.

Why, yes, having government choose what cars we may buy is a very conservative ideology.

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism.

There is no link. At all. You are right. Indeed, conservatives are thrifty and so should be fans of high fuel efficiency cars.

The link is between conservatism and freedom - we oppose the nanny state telling us what to do. We oppose ineffective regulations that purport to help do something and really dont. We oppose Govt rules that do harm. CAFE is all of the above: It's an expression of the nanny state. It's purpose wrt fuel economy is not served, because it doesnt impact the buying desires of peole who WANT the bigger cars etc. And it also does more harm than good: Studies have shown how the light vehicles that are created in the wake of this regulation end up costing lives.

If you want to save oil, there is only one effective way: Ta x it more. Higher prices at the gas pump is the only way to have real and permanent conservation. As a conservative, I would support such higher taxes ONLY if there was a corresponding tax cut somewhere else (eg payroll tax cut).

The critiques of Bush on this are BIZARRE. First, this is from deep in the bowels of the admin, from an acengy mandated to follow CAFE rules. Frankly, we got a lot WORSE from Liddy Dole under Reagan. than we are getting from this Democrat Norm Minetta wrt regulation. If you have a problem with CAFE, take it up with the Congress that mandated them! The proposed rules are designed to make a broken and outdated classification more SENSIBLE. The old rules practically outlawed the station wagon, which is why it disappeared practically and got replaced by other forms of vehicles. Maybe now it can come back, new and improved.